Using implementation science to promote the use of the fascia iliaca blocks in hip fracture care.

PURPOSE: There is variable and suboptimal use of fascia iliaca compartment nerve blocks (FICBs) in hip fracture care. Our objective was to use an evidence-based and theory-informed implementation science approach to analyze barriers and facilitators to timely administration of FICB and select evidence-based interventions to enhance uptake. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study at a single centre using semistructured interviews and site observations. We interviewed 35 stakeholders including health care providers, managers, patients, and caregivers. We mapped barriers and facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We compared the rate and timeliness of FICB administration before and after evidence-based implementation strategies were applied. RESULTS: The study identified 18 barriers and 11 facilitators within seven themes of influences of FICB use: interpersonal relationships between health care professionals; clinician knowledge and skills related to FICB; roles, responsibilities, and processes for delivering FICB; perceptions on using FICB for pain; patient and caregiver perceptions on using FICB for pain; communication of hip fracture care between departments; and resources for delivering FICBs. We mapped the behaviour change domains to eight implementation strategies: restructure the environment, create and distribute educational materials, prepare patients to be active participants, perform audits and give feedback, use local opinion leaders, use champions, train staff on FICB procedures, and mandate change. We observed an increase in the rates of FICBs administered (48% vs 65%) and a decrease in the median time to administration (1.63 vs 0.81 days). CONCLUSION: Our study explains why FICBs are underused and shows that the TDF and CFIR provide a framework to identify barriers and facilitators to FICB implementation. The mapped implementation strategies can guide institutions to improve use of FICB in hip fracture care.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Il existe une utilisation variable et sous-optimale des blocs nerveux du compartiment fascia iliaca (FICB) dans les soins des fractures de la hanche. Notre objectif était d'utiliser une approche scientifique de la mise en œuvre fondée sur des données probantes et sur la théorie pour analyser les obstacles et les facilitateurs à l'administration opportune d'un FICB et pour sélectionner des interventions fondées sur des données probantes pour améliorer l'adoption de cette technique. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une étude qualitative dans un seul centre à l'aide d'entrevues semi-structurées et d'observations sur place. Nous avons interviewé 35 intervenant·es, y compris des prestataires de soins de santé, des gestionnaires, des patient·es et des soignant·es. Nous avons cartographié les obstacles et les facilitateurs du cadre des domaines théoriques (Theoretical Domains Framework, TDF) et du cadre consolidé pour la recherche sur la mise en œuvre (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, CFIR). Nous avons comparé le taux et la rapidité d'administration d'un FICB avant et après l'application des stratégies de mise en œuvre fondées sur des données probantes. RéSULTATS: L'étude a identifié 18 obstacles et 11 facilitateurs dans sept thèmes d'influence de l'utilisation du FICB : les relations interpersonnelles entre les professionnel·les de la santé; les connaissances et les compétences des clinicien·nes liées au FICB; les rôles, responsabilités et processus d'exécution des FICB; les perceptions de l'utilisation des FICB pour soulager la douleur; les perceptions des patient·es et des soignant·es concernant l'utilisation de FICB pour soulager la douleur; la communication des soins des fractures de la hanche entre les services; et les ressources nécessaires à l'exécution des FICB. Nous avons mis en correspondance les domaines de changement de comportement avec huit stratégies de mise en œuvre : restructurer l'environnement, créer et distribuer du matériel éducatif, préparer les patient·es à participer activement, effectuer des audits et donner de la rétroaction, faire appel à des leaders d'opinion locales et locaux, utiliser des champion·nes, former le personnel sur les interventions de FICB et forcer au changement. Nous avons observé une augmentation des taux de FICB administrés (48% vs 65%) et une diminution du délai médian d'administration (1,63 vs 0,81 jour). CONCLUSION: Notre étude explique pourquoi les FICB sont sous-utilisés et montre que le TDF et le CFIR fournissent un cadre pour identifier les obstacles et les facilitateurs à la mise en œuvre des FICB. Les stratégies de mise en œuvre cartographiées peuvent aider les établissements à améliorer l'utilisation des FICB dans le traitement des fractures de la hanche.

Dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's knowledge translation efforts.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) develops evidence-based preventive health care guidelines and knowledge translation (KT) tools to facilitate guideline dissemination and implementation. We aimed to determine practitioners' awareness of task force guidelines and KT tools and explore barriers and facilitators to their use. METHODS: The task force's KT team completed annual evaluations using surveys and interviews with primary care providers in Canada from 2014 to 2020, to assess practitioners' awareness and determinants of use of task force guidelines and tools. We transcribed interviews verbatim and double-coded them using a framework analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 1284 primary care practitioners completed surveys and 183 participated in interviews. On average, 79.9% of participants were aware of the task force's 7 cancer screening guidelines, 36.2% were aware of the other 6 screening guidelines and 18.6% were aware of the 3 lifestyle or prevention guidelines. Participants identified 13 barriers and 7 facilitators to guideline and KT tool implementation; these were consistent over time. Participants identified strategies at the public and patient, provider and health systems levels to improve uptake of guidelines. INTERPRETATION: Canadian primary care practitioners were more aware of task force cancer screening guidelines than its other preventive health guidelines. Over the 6-year period, participants consistently reported barriers to guideline uptake, including misalignment with patient preferences and other provincial or specialty guideline organizations. Further evaluations will assess tailored strategies to address the barriers identified.

The patient engagement evaluation tool was valid for clinical practice guideline development.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reliability and validity of the six and 12 item Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PEET) to inform guideline developers about the quality of patient and public involvement activities. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: PEET-12 and three embedded validation questions were completed by patients and members of the public who participated in developing 10 guidelines between 2018 and 2020. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the validity of a single-dimension factor structure. Cronbach's alpha and Pearson correlations were calculated for internal consistency reliability. Concurrent validation was used to test the construct validity. RESULTS: A total of 290 participants completed the PEET-12. To improve tool efficiency, based on results indicating redundancy from initial item analysis and experts' review, six of 12 items were included in the final tool (PEET-6). For the PEET-6, CFA supported the single-factor structure (χ2(15) = 5173.4, P < 0.001, Tucker-Lewis Index = 1.00, Comparative Fit Index = 0.99, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.08). Correlation between the total score for the 3 validation questions and the PEET-6 total score was 0.71, 95% CI [0.65, 0.77], supporting construct validity. CONCLUSION: PEET-6 and 12 are valid tools to measure patient and public involvement within settings of clinical practice guideline development.